Lawyer Claims Michael Jackson's Employees Weren't Responsible For Protecting Children From Abuse

BYCaroline FisherPublished on July 27, 20231.7K Views

SANTA MARIA, CA - MAY 23: Singer Michael Jackson appears outside the courtroom at the Santa Maria Courthouse during a break in his child molestation trial May 23, 2005 in Santa Maria, California. Jackson is charged in a 10-count indictment with molesting a boy, plying him with liquor and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. (Photo by Aaron Lambert-Pool/Getty Images)

Victims' parents "were not looking to Michael Jackson’s companies for protection," a lawyer for the late artist's estate claims.

In court yesterday (July 26), a lawyer for Michael Jackson's estate claimed that employees of Jackson had no legal obligation to prevent the sexual abuse of children. Two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, accuse the late artist of sexually abusing them when they were children. Their stories were brought to light in the 2019 HBO docuseries, Leaving Neverland. They sued Jackson's estate, MJJ Productions Inc., and MJJ Ventures Inc., corporations owned by Jackson, in 2009 and 2013. They sued the two corporations for allegedly negligent hiring practices. Both lawsuits were previously dismissed in 2017, and again in 2021. Now, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal is looking to re-examine the lawsuits.

Holly Boyer, who's representing the two alleged victims, claims employees should feel obligated to protect children from abuse. This "would require low-level employees to confront their supervisor and call them pedophiles," according to Jonathan Steinsapir, a lawyer for Jackson's estate. "We do require that employees of the entity take those steps, because what we are talking about is the sexual abuse of children," Boyer told judges.

Alleged Michael Jackson Victims Claim They Were Molested

Photo by Kevork Djansezian-Pool/Getty Images)

“What we are talking about here is 7- and 10-year-old children," she then adds. The attorney says the victims were "entirely ill-equipped to protect themselves from their mentor, Michael Jackson." She also says that the plaintiffs, "were left alone in this lion’s den by the defendant’s employees. An affirmative duty to protect and to warn is correct."

Steinsapir claims that the alleged victims' parents "were not looking to Michael Jackson’s companies for protection from Michael Jackson." He cited a deposition from one victim's mother, noting that she didn't know about the companies before bringing her son around Jackson. He additionally argues that negligence in the corporations' hiring process is an unfair accusation, as the alleged abuser was in charge of hiring employees. “Any person that might be prone to criminal tendency has a duty not to hire himself?," he asked.

[Via]

About The Author

Caroline Fisher

Caroline Fisher is a News Writer at HotNewHipHop from Chicago, Illinois. She started at HNHH this year, and has since spent her time writing about all that is newsworthy in the world of hip-hop. With a drive for hunting down the hottest stories, she enjoys documenting new developments in culture and entertainment. She also has an appreciation for hip-hop and seeks to cover the most important trends and shifts. She has a Bachelor of Arts which she received at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Having graduated in 2022, she majored in English with a concentration in Media, Rhetoric and Cultural Studies. Specializing all things music, pop culture and entertainment, some of her favorite musical artists include Snoop Dogg, OutKast, and Nicki Minaj. When she’s not writing about music she’s also a fan of attending shows, watching the latest movies, staying up-to-date with current events, photography, and poetry.